Monday, July 18, 2022

Malaysian authorities seize container of elephant tusks, pangolin scales

Singapore, Jul 18 (EFE).- Malaysian authorities said Monday they had seized a container of elephant tusks, pangolin scales and other animal skulls and bones with an estimated worth of $18 million.

The animal parts were hidden behind sawn timber on a ship coming from Africa that was inspected in Malaysia on July 10, the Customs Department said in a statement.

The container included 6,000kg (around 13,200 pounds) of elephant tusks, 100kg of pangolin scales, 25kg of rhino horns and another 300kg of skeletons, bones and horns of other animals.

Malaysian authorities have opened an investigation into the importer and shipping agent, the department said, without providing further details on the shipment’s final destination.

In China, as well as other countries in Southeast Asia, rhino horn is believed to have medicinal and aphrodisiac properties, although such claims are scientifically baseless.

The belief, coupled with increased purchasing power in the region, is further endangering the already vulnerable populations of rhinos, African elephants and pangolins, among other species that are poached for their body parts.

There are fewer than 20,000 African white rhinos and 6,000 black rhinos in the wild, according to the NGO Save the Rhino.

Asian rhino populations are even more endangered, with no more than 80 Sumatran rhinos and 75 Javan rhinos left in the wild, the NGO estimates. EFE

pav-sh/mp/jt

 

Worst fears unfounded 5 years after start of Uruguay pharmacy cannabis sales

By Alejandro Prieto

Montevideo, Jul 18 (EFE).- Five years after Uruguayan pharmacies began selling cannabis for recreational use, the pioneering law that ushered in that new business has gained greater public support and the worst fears about “gangs of zombies” or spiraling addiction rates have been allayed.

Long lines formed when marijuana sales at pharmacies began on July 19, 2017, three-and-a-half years after Uruguay became the first country in the modern era to legalize cannabis.

But now an atmosphere of total normalcy is apparent at the Antartida pharmacy in Montevideo, one of the 16 outlets that were initially authorized to sell cannabis.

In fact, the only difference visible between marijuana sales and transactions involving standard medications is that buyers must provide a fingerprint impression.

In remarks to Efe, Antartida’s owner, Sergio Redin, said cannabis has been sold for years “without any problems” and that not even his most conservative customers have stopped shopping there.

“When we applied (for authorization to sell cannabis), we had some fears,” he said. “It was something totally new. A lot of pharmacies were against it. Fears about security, that the society, the customers, would reject it. None of that happened,” he said.

Milton Romani, the ex-secretary general of the National Drug Board, the government agency tasked with implementing Uruguay’s drug policies, said several myths hovered over the law regulating cannabis sales, which then-President Jose Mujica signed in December 2013 as an anti-drug trafficking measure.

“There were no gangs of zombies that attacked pharmacies, as some predicted,” he said, adding that fears that Brazilians and Argentines would travel in droves to Uruguay to buy cannabis and send consumption rates soaring also were unfounded.

“The scientific research has shown that cannabis legalization and regulation have not increased consumption. Chile hasn’t regulated or legalized (marijuana), and it has more consumption than Uruguay. In Uruguay, it grew a little at first but now has stabilized,” Romani said.

Uruguayan Institute for Regulation and Control of Cannabis (IRCCA) Executive Director Juan Ignacio Tastas recalled that the pioneering move to legalize recreational cannabis allowed people to grow up to six plants at home and form growers’ clubs that could cultivate up to 99 plants annually.

Then in 2017 authorized pharmacies were permitted to make retail sales to fingerprint-registered consumers (now totaling 49,630), who are allowed a weekly quota of up 10 grams per week across all points of sale.

Tastas noted that supply problems initially discouraged potential customers.

Redin, for his part, agrees that demand initially exceeded supply in a tightly regulated market but says the situation has since been “totally reversed” and that now plenty of cannabis is available for sale.

But pharmacies also came under pressure from banks after cannabis money began entering their accounts, Tastas said, pointing out that United States banks regard those proceeds as illegal and their Uruguayan counterparts do not want to run afoul of finance laws related to controlled substances.

Redin, nevertheless, sees further promise for the industry and says consumers will be drawn to a new strain of cannabis being prepared by the IRCCA that will double the per-package level of THC – the psychoactive substance present in marijuana – to 12 percent or 13 percent.

Testas says of that development that the IRCCA is not looking to create a product with more psychoactivity but instead to retain customers who otherwise would seek out stronger cannabis via unsafe avenues.

“What we’re trying to do is have existing consumers move from illegality to other supply sources,” he added.

Separately, he said efforts are being made to convince more pharmacies to sell cannabis with a view to at least doubling the current total of 28 authorized outlets.

And despite the snags along the way, one undeniable area of progress over the past five years has been public acceptance for the pioneering law, with public approval of recreational cannabis sales having climbed from 24 percent in 2012 to 48 percent at present. EFE

Estonia: HIMARS rocket system purchase makes Russia nervous

Riga, Jul 17 (EFE).- The purchase of high accuracy, long-range multiple launch rocket systems by Estonia, approved by United States authorities, will give the small Baltic country a defensive strike capability that “makes our neighbor (Russia) nervous,” Estonia’s defense minister Kalle Laanet told local media.

Laanet was commenting on the Friday deal by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) that approved the sale of six high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) and a range of sophisticated ammunition loads costing a total of up to $500 million to Estonia.

HIMARS platforms delivered in recent weeks to Ukraine have been credited with destroying around a dozen Russian ammunition storage facilities with precision strikes that set off secondary explosions.

According to a press release from the DSCA, the bulk of the proposed deliveries of HIMARS systems to Estonia will consist of just over 160 “pods” or loads of up to six missiles, some with ranges of up to 200 kilometers and precision guidance radars and other sensors to direct the warheads to their targets.

Longer-range rocket munitions can strike at enemy supply lines and troop movements by firing from positions far beyond the range of conventional “tube” artillery and can hit targets well inside an aggressor’s own territory.

While many multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) are seen as “area weapons” dropping warheads on or around a targeted location, HIMARS can be configured to have each rocket seek and hit a particular building or vehicle.

Local media report that Estonian defense officials hope to see full delivery and deployment of HIMARS by the armed forces in, at most, two years. In addition to the six launch vehicles — light military trucks — and ammunition pods, the HIMARS purchase will include training weapons loads, ruggedized laptop computers and a range of training manuals for various parts of the HIMARS and types of ammunition.

HIMARS are manufactured by the US defense contractor Lockheed Martin. According to the DSCA, the company and the US government will send 15 specialists each to oversee delivery, training and deployment of the weapons system in Estonia.

All three Baltic countries have agreed in principle to jointly purchase MLRS-type weapons systems and it remains to be seen whether Latvian and Lithuanian defense officials will join in a purchase of additional HIMARS for their own defense forces.

HIMARS launch platforms can be deployed by air and move rapidly on most roads, so that any and all HIMARS in the Baltic countries could interoperate anywhere in the region.EFE

jkz/jt

Mike Franken's Chances of Beating Chuck Grassley for Senate in Iowa: Polls

BY JASON LEMON 
ON 7/17/22 

Democrat Mike Franken aims to defeat GOP Senator Chuck Grassley in Iowa in the upcoming November midterms, hoping to flip a Republican-held seat blue to help his political party retain, or possibly shore up, their slim majority in the Senate—but recent polls show he's facing an uphill battle.

Grassley, 88, has held his Senate seat since 1981 and is one of the oldest elected members of the legislative body. Franken is a retired Navy vice admiral and former Defense Department official. The Democrat previously ran unsuccessfully for his party's nomination to run against GOP Senator Joni Ernst in 2020. He won the June primary this year, however, with just over 55 percent of the vote.

In a conservative leaning state that went for former President Donald Trump in 2016 and in 2020, with two Republican senators and a GOP governor, Franken has a difficult race ahead. Recent polls show the Democratic candidate trailing the Republican incumbent.

Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, is the clear frontrunner in his reelection campaign against Democratic challenger Mike Franken, according to recent polls. Above to the left, Franken speaks at a primary election-night event on June 7 in Des Moines, Iowa. Above to the right, Grassley speaks at a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 12 in Washington, D.C.
STEPHEN MATUREN/ANNA MONEYMAKER/GETTY IMAGES

New polling published by Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll on Saturday had Grassley just 8 points ahead of Franken. The incumbent GOP senator was backed by 47 percent of likely Iowa voters compared to 39 percent who supported his Democratic challenger.

While the Republican has a substantial lead, the new poll results were the worst for Grassley in more than three decades.

"While Grassley leads Franken, the margin is narrower than in any Iowa Poll matchup involving Grassley since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate. Grassley has not polled below 50% in a head-to-head contest since October 1980, before he went on to defeat incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. John Culver," Des Moines Register reported.

The survey included 597 likely Iowan voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. It was carried out from July 10 to 13 by Selzer & Co.

A previous poll conducted from June 30 to July 4 for Franken's campaign by Change Research showed a closer race, although Grassley was still in the lead. The survey results had the Republican senator at 49 percent while the retired Navy officer came in at 44 percent. That was a lead of 5 points for the incumbent.

The poll included 1,488 likely voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percent.

In April, a similar Change Research poll for Franken's campaign showed the Democrat down by 3 points. Grassley was backed by 45 percent of likely voters and the Democratic candidate had the support of 42 percent. Some 1,070 respondents were included in the survey with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Although Grassley is clearly the frontrunner in the Senate race, Franken appears to be performing well for a Democratic challenger to the GOP incumbent. In every reelection campaign since 1986, Grassley has beat his liberal challengers by large double-digit margins.

No Democrat has managed to win even 40 percent of the vote against him. Whether Franken ultimately manages to do so, or potentially even pull off an upset victory, remains to be seen.

"It's a solid lead [for Grassley]," pollster J. Ann Selzer told Des Moines Register. "But it's just not as huge as we've seen in the past."
In Life, Canadian Sikh Ripudaman Malik Was an Enigma; His Killing Has Only Added to the Mystery

He was charged with – but later acquitted of – the crime of placing a bomb aboard an Air India flight in 1985 that killed over 300 people, a crime whose full dimensions remain a puzzle in Canada and India.


Sikh activist Ripudaman Singh Malik (C) smiles as he leaves a Vancouver court March 16, 2005, after being found not guilty in the 1985 bombing of an Air India flight off the Irish coast. Photo: Reuters/Lyle Stafford/File

Kusum Arora
JULY 17,2022
THE WIRE

Jalandhar: Ripudaman Singh Malik, the Sikh activist who was shot dead in Canada on July 14, was always embroiled in controversies and the Sikh diaspora in North America is deeply divided over his legacy.

The 75-year-old was accused of involvement in the terrorist bombing of flight AI182 on June 23, 1985, which took the lives of 329 passengers and crew who were on board. However, he was acquitted by a Canadian court in 2005.

One of the deadliest attacks in the history of Canada, the Air India bombing took the lives of 268 Canadians, many of whom were of Indian origin, 24 Indian citizens and 27 British nationals. The flight was a Boeing 747 wide-bodied jumbo jet, christened Emperor Kanishka.

Malik and two others – Inderjit Singh Reyat and Ajaib Singh Bagri – were the main accused in the case. While Reyat was convicted – and released from jail in 2016 – Bagri was acquitted. All three were Canadian citizens.

A wealthy businessman, Ripudaman recently came to the limelight after he wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on January 17, 2022, a month before the Punjab assembly elections, praising him for taking initiatives to redress pending demands of the Sikh.

In the letter, he thanked Modi for removing the names of some Sikhs from the blacklist which prevented them from visiting India. He also accused certain “anti-India members” of the Sikh community of running an “orchestrated campaign” against Modi.

Back in Surrey in British Columbia, his praise for Modi prompted a section of Sikhs to accuse Ripudaman of treachery towards the Sikh ‘qaum‘.

Air India bombings


On June 23, 1985, a bomb exploded aboard Air India 182 operating on the Montreal-London-Delhi-Bombay route. The bomb was placed in a suitcase – checked in by an unidentified man at Vancouver airport – and loaded on a Canadian Pacific flight to Toronto for transfer to AI 181, destined for Montreal. From there, it stayed on the aircraft, which was renumbered AI 182 for the flight to India.

Another bomb was checked in at Vancouver on a Canadian Pacific flight to Narita, Tokyo, which was meant to be transferred to Air India flight AI 310, destined for Bangkok and then India. This bomb exploded prematurely in the baggage handling room of Narita airport, killing two baggage handlers. Since the two bombings were related, they were known as the Kanishka bombings.

The bombings were carried out by the Sikh separatist group Babbar Khalsa in retaliation for Operation Blue Star, during which the Indian Army had stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June 1984 to flush out militants led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.

Ripudaman Singh Malik was closely associated with Talwinder Singh Parmar, who was the alleged mastermind of the Kanishka bombings. Parmar was killed by the Punjab Police in an encounter in 1992.

Surrey-based journalist Gurpreet Singh said that when he questioned Malik during an interview about giving funds to the Babbar Khalsa, he had said, “It wasn’t a banned organisation back then.”

Malik and Bagri were arrested in Vancouver in 2000. Reyat, who was a dual British-Canadian national, was arrested from Coventry in the UK. Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 15 years in jail for assembling the bombs which exploded on board AI 182 and at Narita airport.



Air India 182 memorial in Tornoto, Canada. Photo: Ali mjr/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

Malik’s killing

On July 14, 2022 at 9:26 am (local time), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) responded to a report of a shooting in Surrey, British Columbia. By the time first responders attended the location, Malik was dead.

In its July 14 statement, Sergeant David Lee of the Surrey RCMP said the police are aware of Malik’s background and are working to determine the motive. “We can confirm that the shooting appears to be targeted and there is not believed to be any further risk to the public. Having occurred in a residential area, we are confident that witnesses exist who could help us further this investigation. We urge them to come forward immediately and without delay,” the statement said.

A burned vehicle was also located nearby, which is believed by investigators to be associated with the killing, the statement read.

Soon after the killing, Malik’s son, Jaspreet Singh Malik, said that although the media will always refer to him as someone charged with the Air India bombing, he was “wrongly charged and the court concluded there was no evidence against him”.

Born in Pakistan and raised in the Ferozepur district of Punjab, Malik initially went to the UK but soon moved to Canada. While his financial clout and social standing in the Sikh community grew, he remained embroiled in various controversies.

Ex-British Columbia premier Ujjal Dosanjh, who hails from Dosanjh Kalan village in Jalandhar district, first met Ripudaman Singh Malik in the 1970s, when the local South Asian community in Vancouver was very small.

According to the Vancouver Sun, Dosanjh also did the legal work pro bono to help Ripudaman set up his first two charities, the Satnam Trust and the Satnam Education Society.

“He was a ganja-smoking hippie who had a ponytail and then he turned into an extremist warrior. It’s hard to explain”, Dosanjh said. “Something happened to him.”

The newspaper said Dosanjh believes Malik’s recent support of the Indian government which “he once reviled” could be the motive for the murder.

A ‘false hero’


Speaking to The Wire from Surrey, senior journalist Gurpreet Singh Sahota of Chardi Kala newspaper said that the Punjabi diaspora, particularly the Sikhs, were divided about Ripudaman Singh.

“While the moderate Sikhs feel that he had some role in the Kanishka Bombing, Sikh hardliner groups suspected he was ‘pro-India’ – or that he was planted by Central agencies right from day one. This is the reason why the diaspora would not like to comment much,” he said.

On Malik’s business ventures, Sahota said he was known as a shrewd businessman. He ran the import and export business of the designer clothing brand Papillon. He also owned the Khalsa Credit Union with assets over Canadia $110 million, a banking and investment venture aimed at serving the Sikh community of British Columbia. He ran Khalsa Schools in Surrey and Abottsford under his Satnam Educational Society and “set up a vast network”. “It was also an open secret how he chucked out the founding members of these ventures and took entire control in his hand”, Sahota said.

Sahota added that initially, when Ripudaman came to Canada in 1972, he used to sell Sikh religious literature and items at the Gurdwara Khalsa Diwan Society on Ross Street, Vancouver. Later in 1986, he set up the Khalsa Credit Union with various stakeholders from the Sikh community.

Though Malik claimed to be a devout Sikh, the Akal Takht – the highest seat of Sikh religious power – prevented him from printing saroops (physical copies) of the Guru Granth Sahib at his printing press in August 2020.

A team of the Canada-based British Columbia Gurdwara Council had issued a notice to Malik and Balwant Singh Pandher for violating the 1998 edict by the Akal Takht forbidding any institution other than the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee or the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee from publishing the Guru Granth Sahib.

Insisting that Malik not be made a ‘false hero’, Gurpreet Singh, the Surrey-based journalist, wrote: “I had a chance to meet his (Ripudaman’s) aunt and his college mates in his hometown of Ferozepur in Punjab, where I was posted as a staff reporter with The Tribune, when he was arrested in Canada in 2000. From what they told me, he wasn’t a very religious man before the ugly events of 1984 and was a changed person after that, like any ordinary Sikh.”

Gurpreet Singh also said, “A book titled Soft Target: The Real Story Behind the Air India Disaster on the Kanishka bombings written by Zuhair Kashmeri and Brian McAndrew has mentioned how Ripudaman was given an interest free loan of 1 million Canadian dollars by the State Bank of India, Surrey branch, Canada in 1985. However, this incident has always remained shrouded in mystery.”


A view of Ripudaman Singh Malik’s store Papillon, situated in a shopping complex in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, where he was shot dead on July 14 morning. Photo: By arrangement

Kanishka questions remain

Noted human rights lawyer, advocate Rajvinder Singh Bains from the Punjab Human Rights Organisation – who along with another lawyer Sarabjit Singh Verka had conducted an independent probe into the AI 182 case – told The Wire, “Despite our honest probe, trial papers, books, we presented as a witness a retired DSP of Punjab Police whom we took to Canada in 2007 to testify before the John Major Commission of Inquiry, and the confessional tape of kingpin Babbar Khalsa militant Talwinder Singh Parmar, the inquiry remained inconclusive. Neither the Indian Police nor the Canadian Police supported a fair investigation. We were disheartened.”

Bains said, “Talwinder certainly knew something crucial, that’s why he was killed. We met a large number of people, after which a murky picture emerged both at the official and unofficial level. While the DSP went missing in Canada, Talwinder Singh Parmar was killed in a police encounter in 1992.”

Bains says many suspect the Kanishka bomb was a multi-national ‘espionage game’ originally designed to undermine the influence of Sikh diaspora groups in Canada and the UK who were enraged post-Operation Blue Star.

Trump, Nixon, and the glide path to US fascism

Would electing Hilary Clinton in 2016 have really saved the United States?

Far too many in the United States have concerned themselves with assigning blame for the fascist space in which the US finds itself. For nearly six years, “Oh but those emails!” has been the social media shorthand for shivving Americans who either did not vote in the 2016 presidential election or voted for a candidate other than Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald Trump.

With the ongoing January 6 hearings in the US House of Representatives, the question of how the US devolved to this moment remains all about Trump and 2016. Experts and common Americans alike have been short-sighted (or really, Trump-sighted) in their explanations for how the US took a glide path towards far-right corruption.

Journalist and cultural anthropologist Sarah Kendzior in particular has done some wonderful work in predicting the rise of Trump and explaining the kleptocratic nature of his rise, including her book Hiding in Plain Sight. To Kendzior and others’ credit, they do occasionally mention Ronald Reagan or cite the US Supreme Court’s Bush v Gore decision (which handed George W Bush the presidency in 2000) in understanding how American leaders groomed the US for Trump. But they do not further explore the path that has taken the US and its democracy to the edge of an abyss.

It was at least 50 years ago that the attempts of another administration to alter a potential election outcome first exposed themselves. Indeed, Trump’s televised attempt to steal a presidential election by force was not something entirely new, but only a variation on the theme of “dirty tricks” dating as far back as President Richard Nixon.

With the 50th anniversary of The Plumbers’ Democratic National Committee break-in at the Watergate complex having passed on June 17, many Americans will recognise the most famous attempt to steal a presidential election in US history prior to January 6, 2021. More than a few Americans understood at the time the dangers to American democracy Nixon and his 1972 campaign operatives posed, especially in covering up their spying, wiretapping, and disinformation operations against Democratic candidates.

My own memories as a four-and-a-half-year-old are tied up with Nixon’s televised announcement at 9pm on Thursday evening, August 8, 1974, announcing his formal resignation from office.

It started because of a traumatic injury. My mom was cooking in the shared kitchen of our second-floor flat, making some kind of chicken dish. She had the oven door open, having just taken the chicken out of it and having placed it on the stove. I tried to climb up to the top of the stove to get a taste by using the open oven door as a stepstool, and I scorched the outside of my right calf. The skin around the burn area was gone (it was a pretty good second-degree burn), leaving a white circular burn mark. Mom applied ointment and a bandage and made me take two Bayer aspirins for the pain.

Still crying in pain from the shock of seeing, smelling and feeling my skin being seared in the kitchen, I plopped down on the couch in the living room, which was slightly to the right of the TV. A man with a hogshead kind of head appeared on the 19-inch Quasar colour television screen, a man I vaguely knew as President Nixon. I recall mom shaking her head, and Walter Cronkite calling it a “sad time” for the country. Nixon seemed as sad and pitiful as I felt that evening, as the rest of the US probably felt, too. I didn’t understand everything I saw, of course. Words like “impeachment”, “hearings”, and “resignation” were well beyond the vocabulary of a kid a month away from starting kindergarten. But I saw what I saw, and for more than just a few moments.

For the past 48 years, I have had flashbacks to those moments. With that, I was encouraged to learn more about what was then the unprecedented level of political corruption Nixon brought with him to the White House and sustained for more than five years as president. The worst part of Watergate and the unearthing of all the corruption that followed was what occurred after Nixon resigned from office on August 9, 1974. A month later, newly installed President Gerald Ford issued his Proclamation 4311, pardoning Nixon for any and all crimes in which he played a role.

Ford’s reasons? “As president, my primary concern must always be the greatest good of all the people of the United States whose servant I am … My concern is the immediate future of this great country,” Ford said in his speech defending his decision. So much for, “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over,” which was what Ford had said a month earlier upon taking the oath of office.

Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon for his illegal activities in undermining his Democratic opponents and then covering up those activities was short-sighted, craven, and narcissistic. Ford let Nixon and everyone convicted for their role in Watergate off the hook, prolonging the “national nightmare” to the present day. The decision to not punish the ringleader of the greatest attempt to break America’s democracy at that time would lead to greater corruption and ever more brazen scandals.

One can draw connections deriving from Nixon and Ford to Iran-Contra, to Bush v Gore, to Citizens United and the ever-increasing amounts of dark money in American elections, to Trump, and now to the January 6 hearings.

With such a hyper-focus on Trump’s rise, though so many have discounted the glide path that has led to the January 6 hearings, and with it, the serious doubt that Trump will ever be punished for his fascist deeds. And that will likely embolden him and others to try again. Despite what experts like Sarah Kendzior and others have written in recent years, the lurching of the US towards corruption and fascism was never “hidden in plain sight” at all.

This flight towards perdition began as a response to expanding civil and human rights for Black folk and white women and as an answer to the quagmire Vietnam had become politically for cold warriors looking for economic access to mainland China. Far-right forces have blinded Americans and the rest of the world with their penchant for unvarnished and craven brazenness. They have dared progressives and leftists to call them out for their wilful ignorance, corruption, and bald-faced lies, in 1968, in 1972, and in 2022. Trump and his corruption of American politics, his wannabe fascism, and the merry band of kleptocrats he leads, his rise is but the latest danger in a representative democracy heavily influenced by white male demagoguery. The belief that electing Hillary Clinton in 2016 would have reversed this 50-year-plus trend is as delusional as believing the fundamentals of America’s political institutions remain strong.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.


UK will not ban video games loot boxes despite problem gambling findings

‘Foxes are guarding hen house,’ says expert after ministers seek tougher industry-led protections instead

A child plays a video game. There had been hopes that consultation would lead to in-game rewards being classed as betting products to protect children. 
Photograph: Milan_Jovic/Getty Images

Rob Davies
@ByRobDaviesSun 17 Jul 2022

Loot boxes in video games will not be banned in the UK, despite a government consultation finding evidence of a “consistent” association between the features and problem gambling.

Loot boxes have attracted comparison with gambling because they allow players to spend money to unlock in-game rewards, such as special characters, weapons or outfits, without knowing what they will get.

The features, popular in games such as Call of Duty and the Fifa football series, were effectively banned in Belgium in 2018, but the culture minister, Nadine Dorries, said the UK would not follow suit.

Instead, after a 22-month consultation, she said the government would discuss tougher “industry-led” protections with the UK’s £7bn gaming sector, drawing allegations from one expert that “foxes are guarding the hen house”.

Legislating to impose curbs or a prohibition on loot boxes as part of an expected overhaul of the UK’s gambling laws could have “unintended consequences”, Dorries said.

“For example, legislation to introduce an outright ban on children purchasing loot boxes could have the unintended effect of more children using adult accounts, and thus having more limited parental oversight of their play and spending,” the government said, in a response to the consultation published in the early hours of Sunday morning.

The government also concluded that while there was “a stable and consistent” association between loot boxes and problem gambling – identified across 15 peer reviewed studies – it could not be sure that there was a causative link.

“Our view is that it would be premature to take legislative action without first pursuing enhanced industry-led measures to deliver protections for children and young people and all players,” it said.

Another factor in the decision is that loot box rewards cannot legitimately be exchanged for real money, meaning players cannot in theory “cash out” as they might when gambling.

However, the Gambling Commission has previously warned that third-party sites are allowing people to exchange the rewards for real money.

While the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) stopped short of proposing legislation, Dorries said: “Children and young people should not be able to purchase loot boxes without parental approval.

“In addition, all players should have access to spending controls and transparent information to support their gaming.”

Ministers are expected to pursue tougher curbs through talks with the UK video games industry. This will be done via a working group, which is scheduled to deliver its first update in the first three months of 2023.

“We expect games companies and platforms to improve protections for children, young people and adults, and for tangible results to begin to be seen in the near future,” the DCMS said. “If that does not happen, we will not hesitate to consider legislative options, if we deem it necessary to protect children, young people and adults.”

Dr David Zendle, a video games expert at University of York, criticised the decision, saying: “Prior select committee inquiries have unambiguously shown that certain bad actors within the video game industry cannot be trusted to self-regulate when it comes to player protection.

“By making those same industry bodies the ones that are responsible for regulating loot boxes, DCMS is essentially guaranteeing that foxes are the ones guarding the hen house.”
It’s time for the Democratic Party’s geriatric leaders to relinquish power

Opinion by Glenn C. Altschuler, opinion contributor - Yesterday 

© Provided by The HillIt’s time for the Democratic Party’s geriatric leaders to relinquish power

“The world is very different now,” John F. Kennedy proclaimed in his inaugural address in 1961. “And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue.” After imploring his audience never to forget that “we are the heirs of that first revolution,” Kennedy added, “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.”

More than ever before, the Democratic Party needs to heed Kennedy’s advice and transfer power from the gerontocracy in the White House, U.S. Senate, and House of Representatives to a new generation of leaders.

At age 79, President Biden is the oldest president in the history of the United States. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Speaker of the House, is 82. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is 83. Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is 81. Pelosi has served in Congress since 1987; Hoyer since 1981 and Clyburn since 1993. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is 71; Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is 81. Schumer and Durbin have both served in Congress for over 40 years.

These leaders, to be sure, have had considerable success.

President Biden, who campaigned in 2020 as a healer, has restored democratic norms, honesty, and integrity to the Executive Branch. His pandemic policies have helped reduce hospitalizations and deaths. In a hyper-partisan political climate, and with razor-thin majorities in the House and Senate, he has managed to get Congress to pass a $1.9 trillion COVID relief package and a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that helped produce substantial increases in economic growth and reductions in unemployment. Biden also deserves considerable credit for the robust NATO response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

One of the most effective House Speakers in decades, Pelosi supplied the Democratic votes necessary to pass bills proposed by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations in 2008 and 2009 to avert a depression by rescuing financial institutions and automobile companies. She steered Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act through the House. More recently, Pelosi brought moderate and progressive Democrats together to produce majorities for the legislation proposed by Biden, some of which subsequently died in the 50-50 Senate.

Majority Leader of the Senate for only a year and a half, Schumer has won praise for his role in negotiations over the bi-partisan infrastructure bill.

That said, it seems clear to me (even though — or because — I am 72 years old) that it is time for a change. President Biden looks his age. His halting speech and frequent gaffes do not inspire confidence that he has a clear and compelling vision for the country or the ability to implement it. He has trouble remembering names.

As Mark Leibovich has recently written, the president’s advanced age serves as a “kind of proxy for the tired and hobbled state of his agenda and the state of the Democratic Party.” Nor are Pelosi and Schumer effective communicators on television or social media. With inflation surging and the distinct possibility of a recession, Biden’s approval ratings are tanking, a substantial majority of Americans do not want him to run again, and only 16 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. The 2022 midterm elections could be a debacle for Democrats.

A solid majority of Americans, it’s also worth noting, support mandatory retirement for elected officials — most say at age 70.

This summer President Biden should declare that he will not seek re-election in 2024. Pelosi (who in 2018 supported limiting senior leaders in the House to three terms), Hoyer, Clyburn, Schumer, and Durbin should indicate that they will relinquish their leadership positions in January 2023. Their announcements might well generate goodwill toward them and their party.

The torch can then be passed to, among others, the relatively young, articulate, more aggressive and media-savvy Democrats: Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (Mich.), Pete Buttigieg (Ind.), Julian Castro (Texas), Sen. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Gov. Gavin Newsom (Calif.), Gov. Jared Polis (Colo.), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and Kamala Harris (Calif.).

And Democrats could alter the political conversation.

They should run on a platform prioritizing state and federal legislation protecting reproductive rights; a ban on purchases of assault weapons; reducing greenhouse gases, and requiring wealthy individuals and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. They should show how election-deniers, conspiracy theorists, ideological extremists, and their power-over-principle enablers have taken over the Republican Party.

They should identify the anti-democratic agenda these Republicans have already begun implementing: voter suppression; overturning the will of the people; scapegoating immigrants; undermining respect for facts and scientific expertise, freedom of speech and inquiry, common decency and common sense, by blocking enforcement of pandemic mitigation measures; removing books from libraries, and prohibiting public schools from discussing racism and gender identity.

In the summer and fall, as new and aspiring Democratic leaders reframe the issues, they could energize the traditional constituencies of their party and independents.

And then maybe, just maybe, in November 2022, Democrats will surprise pundits, pollsters, themselves, and lots of other Americans.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of “Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century.”
Algeria: Last days for the El Watan newspaper?

Tahar HANI
Sun, 17 July 2022 

© Ryad Kramdi, AFP

A number of independent Algerian newspapers, prestigious francophone daily El Watan chief among them, are undergoing a period of crisis aggravated by political and economic pressures that may threaten their existence. This situation raises questions about the future of Algerian media, and more broadly about freedom of the press.

The Algerian independent press is facing an existential crisis. Many publications created when the media landscape was opened up to the private sector in the late 1980s have been forced to cease activity in recent decades. This was the case for French daily Le Matin in 2004 and for Liberté, a flagship of the Algerian independent press, which closed its doors in April. "Financial and economic hardships" were cited as the reasons for the closure of the daily belonging to Issad Rebrab, a wealthy businessman.

Employees of Liberté tried to purchase the title, but its owner rejected this option for "political reasons", as described by some.

Two months later, before the shock of Liberté‘s closure had worn off, a new tremor reverberated across the Algerian journalism scene. Deprived of advertising income, the prestigious francophone daily El Watan ("The Homeland"), which appeared in Algeria in 1990, also found itself in tough spot.

Its income had been significantly slashed by the Agence Nationale d'Édition et de Publicité (the "National Publishing and Advertising Agency", or Anep), the state advertising distributor, which unilaterally broke its contract during the term of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika. This happened during the same time the paper decided not to support a fourth term for the president in 2019.

The authorities pressure public and private companies - both Algerian and foreign - not to buy advertising space in the newspaper due to its "independent" editorial line, in view of gradually closing down El Watan.

Cyclical strike after several months without pay


Faced with this prospect, the newspaper's employees decided to go on two-day cyclical strikes, starting on July 13 and 14, to protest several months' "non-payment of salaries".

In an article published on the front page on Tuesday, July 12, El Watan's board of directors sounded the alarm on the financial situation of the title originally founded by a group of journalists. "For the 150 employees, the social situation has become critical and has exceeded the tolerance threshold, especially as horizons are closed to any hope for a way out of the financial stranglehold the company is undergoing," it warned.

The board of directors also criticised the decision of the tax authorities and its crediting bank Crédit Populaire d'Algérie (CPA) “to freeze the company's accounts despite continuous attempts to find a solution to the problem”, noting that “numerous appeals to the public authorities have been in vain”.

The tax authorities and the Algerian bank are demanding payment of tax arrears dating back to the beginning of the pandemic, when the government allowed companies to defer payment of their taxes.

FRANCE 24 spoke to a journalist from El Watan on the condition of anonymity. He described an "atmosphere of sadness in the corridors of the newspaper". "All scenarios come to mind while imagining the end of an old newspaper like ours, except for a closure for financial reasons” he added.

He explained that "the journalists understand the situation perfectly well and have accepted not to receive their salaries for five months, but their patience has its limits.”

The journalist was critical of the newspaper's owners, pointing out that "for years, their mismanagement has led to an accumulation of debts".

The newspaper condemns the tax authorities

“Journalists and employees of El Watan went on strike without conviction because they love the newspaper and have been working there for years," he continued. “But after a long wait, the owners did not try to resolve the crisis, so they decided to stop work” he went on. He also warned that other initiatives will be taken starting next week if the situation remains the same.

In a statement posted on social networks on July 12, the newspaper's trade union stressed that employees "note with regret that in addition to its inability to find a way out of the crisis, management has not yet proposed any serious dialogue with its social partner".

Mohamed Tahar Messaoudi, the newspaper's current director, told the Middle East Eye website that "it was the tax authorities that refused to give a deadline for paying taxes and debts". What made the situation worse, he said, was "the refusal of the company's bank to lend its newspaper enough money to pay the employees' salaries".

Describing the bank's decision as "unjustified" because the newspaper "still held financial assets that could allow it to pay its debts", Mohamed Tahar Messaoudi called on the strikers to "open a constructive dialogue with the administration".
"Press freedom faces many red lines"

After Bouteflika's regime fell in 2019, El Watan's bosses breathed a sigh of relief and hoped for the return of advertising revenue. However, it ran an article accusing the sons of General Ahmed Gaïd Salah, a pillar of the system in power at the time, of corruption which apparently put an end to the dream of relaunching the newspaper and bringing it out of its financial agony, according to the Middle East Eye.

While the situation of El Watan is very worrying, other media are also threatened with extinction. Several human rights and press freedom organisations such as Reporters Without Borders (RSF) have consistently sounded the alarm about the media situation in Algeria, where "the media landscape has never been so deteriorated.”

RSF wrote on its website in the Algeria page that "the private sector has been suffering since 2019, and several media outlets and television channels have had to close down, particularly because the media outlets are deprived of advertising". Moreover, state subsidies are only granted to public media or to private media close to the regime, the NGO added.

"In Algeria, the press comes up against a series of red lines", states RSF. "Simply mentioning corruption or the crushing of demonstrations can invite threats and police interrogation."

This page was adapted from the original in French.
UK
Home Office in fresh row with UNHCR over Rwanda asylum policy

Despite court hearing, Home Office continues to claim UNHCR is supportive of controversial scheme


Protesters demonstrate in central London in June against the UK government’s plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. 
Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Diane Taylor
THE GUARDIAN
Sun 17 Jul 2022 

The Home Office has been accused of misrepresenting the UN refugee agency’s stance on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, in a new disagreement between the two organisations, the Guardian has learned.

The Home Office and UNHCR have clashed previously over the safety and suitability of the Home Office’s policy of forcibly removing some asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK on small boats or in the back of lorries to Rwanda to have their claims processed there.

A high court hearing on 10 June was told that the Home Office misled refugees about UN involvement in Rwanda plans.

But despite UNHCR making its position on the government’s Rwanda scheme clear during the court hearing, the Home Office is continuing to state UNHCR is supportive of the controversial scheme.

The first flight, which was due to take off for Rwanda on 14 June, identified victims of torture and trafficking among those earmarked for the flight. An interim ruling from the European court of human rights grounded the flight at the 11th hour.

A high court hearing is scheduled for September to determine the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy.


A critical report about flaws in the plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was published last week. The report from the charity Asylos, which produces expert reports about the safety of countries to which the Home Office plans to return asylum seekers to, found fundamental inconsistencies between the Home Office’s assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country and its own findings.

In its response to the Guardian about the Asylos report, the Home Office robustly defended the Rwanda scheme and said it had the support of UNHCR.


A Home Office spokesperson said: “Our own assessment of Rwanda has found it is a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers, including working with the UN Refugee Agency, which said the country has a safe and protective environment for refugees. As part of our partnership, the UK is providing an initial investment of £120m to boost the development of Rwanda, including jobs, skills and opportunities, to benefit both migrants and host communities.”

Home Office sources added that last year UNHCR and the EU worked with Rwanda to resettle refugees from Libya there and that UNHCR praised the Rwandan government for offering a welcoming and safe environment to vulnerable people around the world.

A UNHCR UK spokesperson told the Guardian: “Rwanda has generously hosted some 130,000 refugees in recent decades, mostly from neighbouring countries. But those seeking asylum have historically been granted a presumptive (prima facie) legal status – established procedures for individual refugee status determination in Rwanda are minimal. UNHCR holds serious concerns with regard to specific shortcomings of the Rwandan asylum system and Rwanda’s capacity to offer long-term solutions for those being removed under the proposed deal.”

The spokesperson added that the emergency transit mechanism scheme to which the Home Office refers, which evacuates the most vulnerable refugees in Libya to Rwanda, “has vastly different aims and modalities to what is currently being proposed by the UK. Critically, the ETM is an emergency, temporary and voluntary programme – none of which is true of the proposed migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. The ETM does not involve resettlement or long-term integration in Rwanda, and refugees’ status is determined by UNHCR. There is no reasonable comparison between the ETM and what is proposed for asylumseekers forcibly sent by the United Kingdom to Rwanda.”

The comment about Rwanda offering a welcoming and safe environment was made by a Somali refugee who was staying in Rwanda temporarily after being evacuated from Libya before being resettled elsewhere, rather than by UNHCR.

“I had heard that Rwanda was a safe place and they were welcoming refugees,” the refugee said.

Protests Across UK Oppose ‘Heinous’ Rwanda Migrant Deportation Policy


TEHRAN (FNA)- Campaigners rallied against the Government’s “heinous” policy to send some migrants to Rwanda in a series of protests across the UK.

Protests were due to take place in Cambridge, Cardiff, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Oxford and Sheffield, according to Care4Calais – a refugee charity, The Independent reported.

Images on social media also appeared to show people protesting outside Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, by Gatwick Airport, and Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre, near Heathrow Airport.

The demonstrations were called as part of the #StopRwanda campaign, launched by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Care4Calais and Stand Up To Racism.

The campaign is backed by 11 trade unions, including the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) – which represents more than 80% of Border Force staff – refugee rights organisations and faith groups.

In April, Home Secretary Priti Patel signed what she branded a “world-first” agreement to send migrants deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally to Rwanda.

Patel says the “vast majority” of those who arrive in the UK through means deemed “illegal” – such as on unauthorised boats or stowed away in lorries – will be considered for relocation.

The first deportation flight – due to take off in June – was grounded amid legal challenges.

A judicial review of the plan was due to be heard on July 19, but charities including Care4Calais and Detention Action – which are bringing the case – said the hearing has been adjourned until September.

All candidates competing to replace Boris Johnson have pledged to keep the Rwanda policy if they become Conservative Party leader.

Clare Moseley, Care4Calais CEO, said, “Many people oppose the shockingly brutal Rwanda plan and we are delighted to see so many of them making their voices heard today."

“We have seen up close the human cost of locking people up and telling them they will be sent to Rwanda," Moseley added.

“From suicide attempts to hunger strikes it was harrowing," she said, adding, “We now have six weeks to show the Government that this cruel plan is not what the British public wants.”

Mark Serwotka, PCS union general secretary, said “It’s time for the Government to show humanity to the people who come to our shores for refuge.”

Weyman Bennett, co-convenor, Stand Up To Racism, criticised the “heinous Rwanda detention policy”.

A Home Office spokesperson said, “We remain committed to our world-leading Migration Partnership with Rwanda, which will see those arriving dangerously, illegally, or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to rebuild their lives there."

“This is vital to prevent loss of life in the Channel and break the business model of people smugglers," the spokesperson added.

“The Government’s New Plan for Immigration is the most comprehensive reform of the asylum system and the Nationality and Borders Act will speed up the removal of those who have no right to be here, preventing abuse and deterring illegal entry to the UK,” the spokesperson said.